Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 02-07-1995 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING-MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 7, 1995 Members Present: Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten Members Absent: None 1. The meetinl!' was called to order bv actine: chairoerson Jon BOl!'art at 7 n.m. 2. Consideration of aooointinl!' a chairnerson for 1995. The commission decided to wait on appointing a chairperson until the end of the meeting. Jon Bogart would be acting chair for this meeting. 3. Consideration of aooroval of minutes for the re2'Ular meetine: held Januarv 3. 1995. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 3, 1995 MEETING. DICK FRIE SECONDED. 4. Consideration of a zonine: ordinance amendment reeulatine.: oole buildinl!' construction. Aonlicant Monticello Planninl! Commission. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, outlined concerns presented by various organizations with regards to pole construction. The Industrial Development Committee (IDC) has expressed concern but did not develop a consensus as to the level of regulation that is appropriate. There is the concern that polarization of pole buildings can result in general loss of tax revenue potential and tend to result in depreciation of land values and not are not appropriate in commercial districts. There has recently been inquires in the commercial districts for pole building construction. The Planning Commission could decide to regulate the business district and study industrial areas in the comprehensive plan update. Steve Grittman noted that regulation of pole buildings in commercial areas is common in most cities. Since there does not appear to be a consensus on whether or not to regulate pole construction in the industrial zones, the questions should be reviewed in conjunction with development of the comprehensive plan. Pagel Planning Commission Minutes . 2/07/95 . Jeff O'Neill stated that there are no permits for pole construction that have been applied for now but he anticipated applications soon based on recent contacts from the public. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart opened the public hearing. Glen Posusta, owner of mini storage business in the B.3 zone, was interested in how a new restriction would affect his mini storage business which is a pole building. Posusta thought the city allowed pole buildings in certain areas and stated that mini storage buildings are almost always pole buildings. If a storage business had to build a concrete or brick construction it would be very expensive to operate. If pole buildings are regulated in the future, what will happen to his business? He has built one storage unit but has long range plans for more buildings. Steve Grittman, City Planner, stated that Posusta could continue to build because his original Conditional Use Permit would still apply. If regulated pole buildings that are destroyed can not be replaced as pole buildings because they are a non-conforming use. . Glen Posusta asked what would happen if he sold the business? Grittman replied that a purchaser of the property can take over your Conditional Use Permit, unless the person changes the use of the permit. The business would have to stay the same. Posusta's long range goals would be to have an on. site office as part of one of the units. He inquired if that would be allowed. Grittman said each individual permit and property would have to be looked at to see if it would comply with the ordinance. Gary Anderson, Building Official, added that steel buildings can have an added facia like brick. or veneer but pole buildings are not strong enough to support this. Grittman was concern that if the city made allowances for pole buildings with added facia each building would have to have an architectural review to review each strocture. Simply banning pole construction would simplify the review process. . Page 2 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/95 Acting Chairperson Bogart closed the public hearing. The planning commission discussed which areas should have restrictions on pole buildings. While Posusta's mini storage was acknowledged it was agreed that the ordinance had to concentrate on the city as a whole not one or two business. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 3-2 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ALLOWING PRE- ENGINEERED STEEL BUILDINGS IN THE BC ZONE. SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE. Motion based on the following findings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan. 2. Compatibility with the geography or character of the area. 3. Effect on land values. 4. Demonstrated need for the amendment. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Consideration of zonine ordinance amendments rel!Ulatine olacement of accessory structures (storalle sheds) in the rear year of double frontin~ lots. Aoolicant Monticello Plannine Commission. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator, explained that at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission heard a report from City staff and called for a public hearing on adoption of an ordinance amendment that would regulate placement of accessory structures, namely storage sheds and kennels for properties that have road frontage on both the front and the rear of the property. Double-fronting lots are an unavoidable result of development of collector roads such as School Boulevard that extend along the perimeter of development areas. When subdivisions are designed, efforts are made to limit the number of double- fronting lots and to provide for extra lot depth in an effort to buffer the impact of having a busy road as a rear yard boundary. A side affect of double-fronting lots that has become a problem in the recent past is the proliferation of storage buildings and kennels that are placed at the 5-ft setback minimum on rear yards of double-fronting lots. Examples of this practice can be found along School Boulevard on the west side of Page 3 . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/95 Cardinal Hills subdivision. Planning Commission is asked to review this practice and consider adopting an ordinance amendment that would change the setback requirement to 30 ft. Steve Grittman, City Planner, explained that this is a difficult issue because it is a hard ordinance to enforce. Dick Frie, Planning Commissioner, asked the building official if a 30 ft setback would create a hardship for any homeowners. Would their backyards be large enough that a 30 ft setback would be reasonable? Gary Anderson, Building Official, stated that on some lots there might be a problem. The Planning Commission determined that a greater setback distance would still not totally eliminate the clutter seen from the road. It was suggested that requiring landscaping would be a better approach. Frie suggested that the city should look into putting more trees on School Blvd and developers could be required to plant trees on the rear yard lots. . Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart opened the public hearing. There was nobody present so Bogart closed the hearing. DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO TABLE REGULATING PLACEMENT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARDS OF DOUBLE- FRONT LOTS AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE TO RESEARCH. Seconded by Richard Carlson. Motion to table was unanimous. 6. Consideration of zoninl! ordinance amendments establishine buffer yard reauirements. AODlicant: Monticello Planninl! Commission. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that in May of 1994 the City Council asked the Planning Commission to develop a buffer policy for residential land adjacent to industrial districts. This was in response to the development of the zoning district alignment adopted with the Klein Farm addition. The purpose is to establish landscaping and screening requirements designed to separate incompatible land uses. Steve Grittman, City Planner, referred to the diagram and chart showing how the buffer yard ordinance is organized. Rod Dragsten inquired if one side of the property line is developed and a . Page 4 . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/95 new owner moves in who picks up the cost of the buffering? Grittman stated according to the chart the new property owner would be responsible for the development of the buffer until such time as the existing development is significantly changed, alters, or expanded. O'Neill asked ifberming is used for security or is security the owners responsibility. Grittman stated that berming regulations are built to give an incentive to install a fence because by fencing it reduces the amount of plant material that is needed. But the security of the area is the property owner's responsibility and is not included in the buffer yard requirements. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart opened the public hearing. Jay Morrell, owner of M & P Transport expressed support of the ordinance and approved the trees and berm combination. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart closed the public hearing. . DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO YARD REQUIREMENTS. The motion was seconded by Dick Frie. The motion was based on the following findings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan. 2. Compatibility with the geography or character of the area. 3. Effect on land values. 4. Demonstrated need for the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of aDDrovine the oreliminarv Dlat of Dhase V of the Cardinal Hills subdivision. ADDlicant. Value Plus Homes. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported on the development for Phase V of the Cardinal Hills Development which is completely consistent with the development plan previously reviewed and approved by the City therefore approval of this phase is virtually a housekeeping matter. There . Page 5 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/95 will be 34 lots, the street name that was Falcon has been changed to Blue Bird, and the pathways are now shown on the plat as outlots. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart opened the public hearing. Tom Holthaus, developer of Cardinal Hills, was in attendance but had no comments. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart closed the public hearing. Dick Frie inquired if the park would be a kiddie park and with what phase would this be completed. Tom Holthaus said that it will a kiddie park and would be completed with Phase V. The pathway from Phase V to Phase VI will also be completed. DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE PHASE V OF THE CARDINAL HILLS SUBDIVISION. Richard Carlson seconded the motion. The motion passes unanimously. B. Consideration of alternatives for development of a zonin2 ordinance amendment that would allow vehicle storae:e or Darkine: at a location other than the principal use. ADPlicant: Jav Morrell. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator, gave a history on the property in the industrial park that is being used for vehicle storage. Jay MOITell, owner of M & P Transport, was using a vacant lot for parking semi-trailers on. Morrell does own the lot but according to present ordinance outside storage is only allowed as an accessory use. O'Neill explained this meeting is primarily for the Planning Commission to provide guidance to Morrell in defining what approach to take in requesting a zoning ordinance amendment. There would be three ways to amend the current zoning ordinance that would allow outside storage: 1. Request that outside storage be redefined as an allowable principal use regulated under the condition use permit process. 2. Request that the definition of accessory use be modified to allow outside storage as an accessory use to occur on a different lot from the main building or use. Page 6 . 3. Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/95 Create an Interim Permit that could be used with the agreement that there is a date of completion. This can be a useful way to use land that there is no immediate use for but can also create the problem of discouraging a long term use on the site. Morrell stated that he doesn't consider his outside storage but a parking lot. All the vehicles are licensed and movable and he owns and pays taxes on the land. His business is growing and he does not have room for all the semi-trailers this time of year on the business site. He also could understand the need to make it look presentable and would be willing to plant trees and gravel the lot if necessary. Gary Anderson, Building Official, stated if the ordinance is going to be changed to allow outside storage on vacant lots then there should be screening requirements that apply. 1. What land is available in the industrial park? Jon Bogart recommended researching the following items before the next meeting: . 2. If the interim permit is appropriate, what would be the length of time a permit would be granted? 3. How would we enforce the deadline when the interim use is over? DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO HAVE STAFF LOOK INTO THE ISSUE OF OUTSIDE STORAGE IN MORE DETAIL IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR A REVIEW AT THE NEXT MEETING. Rod Dragsten seconded the motion. Motion passes unanimously. 9. Consideration to adoDt a resolution findinl! the modified RedeveloDment Plan for Redevelonment Proiect No. 1. and TIC Plan for TIC District No. 1- 19. located within RedeveloDment Proiect No. 1. to be consistent with the comnrehensive nlan for the city. Jeff O'Neill reported that the Plamring Commission previously approved the conditional use permits allowing for the development of a 48-unit , 3-story senior housing facility and allowing for development of a joint parking lot shared by the Hospital District and the Housing Alliance. The approvals . Page 7 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/95 were granted based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Although the budget within the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-19 may need to be modified, the Planning Commission is request to adopt the resolution in order to keep the project on a timely schedule. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1, AND TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO 1-19, LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY. (RESOLUTION 95-1). Seconded by Dick Frie. Motion passed unanimously 10. Review time line for UDdatin~ comDrehensive Dlan for the citX. 11. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, provided an update to the Planning Commission on the comprehensive plan schedule. The city council had authorized an expenditure of $24,000 toward completion of an update to the comprehensive plan for Monticello. Steve Grittman, City Planner, explained that the it would be a very aggressive schedule to complete the update by October. It is referred to as an update but it is in reality a new plan. Grittman would be working closely with the Planning Commission. The process would be started by interviewing a variety of community members that are involved in a wide range of business, commissions, and organizations. This will give the consultants an understanding of Monticello and a place to start to formulate and focus on community long range planning. The idea is to have a document that the city residents have produced and use the consultant only for guidance. Review sketch Dlan outlininR residential develoDment of the John Leerssen DroDertv. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the sketch plan for the Leerssen property. It is a 10 acre parcel with 16 lots. There is only an access on Fallon Ave so an additional access is needed. It was suggested that the road should not end in a cul-de-sac and should be designed to extend into the property to the south. The Planning Commission thought this plat should be referred to the Park's Commission for feedback as to the design of the park area. Page 8 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/95 12. Consideration of annointinl! a chaimerson for 1995. After discussion, Dick Frie was appointed as chairperson of the Planning Commission. 13. DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Seconded by Richard Carlson. Meeting adjourned 9:45p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wartdt-t fWu1N-/l Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician Page 9